{{tabMeta[tabKey].title}}
{{tabMeta[tabKey].desc}}
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
{{item.title}}
{{ item.content.replace(/<[^>]+>/g, '') }}
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
Update to notifications for patents with excess claims
On 1 October 2024, we updated some of our fees to continue covering the costs of administering intellectual property (IP) rights and related legislation.
CNIPA Deputy Commissioner Meets with MyIPO Deputy Director General in Beijing
On May 12, Lu Pengqi, Deputy Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), met in Beijing with a delegation led by Mr. Sh. Arifin bin Sh. Mohd Noor, Deputy Director General of the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO).
[Guest post] Third-party registration of well-known foreign trade marks in the EU: The Frisby case
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following guest contribution by Katfriend Salvatore Marcenaro (Wolf Méndez Abogados Asociados) concerning a recent third-party attempt to register the well-known Colombian “FRISBY” trade mark in the EU.
COPA v Wright: Civil Restraint Orders and Vexatious Litigation
The word ‘saga’ is perhaps overused to describe long and drawn-out litigation. However, that term feels justified when reporting on the latest instalment of the Dr. Wright v. COPA litigation. The High Court, in a judgment from Mr Justice Mellor (Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2025] EWHC 1139 (Ch)), has now made an order that will make it very much more difficult for Dr. Wright to pursue claims in England & Wales. Is this the end of the road?
IP Annual Report on Brazil - 2024
The Dannemann Siemsen Institute is pleased to present its “Intellectual Property Annual Report on Brazil”, offering relevant data and insights about the country in 2024 within the field of intellectual property law.
Brazil: INPI Announces Changes to IP Fees Effective August 2025
The Ordinance GM/MDIC No. 110, published on May 9, 2025, established an adjustment to the fee schedule for Intellectual Property Services at the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (“INPI”). The new fee table modifies the amounts charged for various services, with significant changes in trademark application fees.
Artificial Intelligence 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising industries across Malaysia, unlocking unprecedented opportunities for efficiency, automation and economic growth. By 2030, AI is expected to contribute USD115 billion to Malaysia’s productive capacity. Recognising AI’s transformative potential, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim emphasised: “If you want to ensure that an emerging economy succeeds, remains competitive, and sustainable, then it has to be through a quantum leap, and AI is the answer for that.” This commitment is reflected in Malaysia’s 2025 budget, which allocates MYR600 million for AI research and development and MYR50 million to expand AI-related education, underscoring the government’s strategic push toward an AI-powered future.
High-Tech Brand Protection: The Trademark Strategy and Market Advantage of Carrot Run
In today's rapidly changing market environment, the protection of brand value is particularly crucial for high-tech companies as the main drivers of the innovation economy. A brand is not only a symbol of a company's image but also a core embodiment of its market competitiveness.
IPOPHL highlights partnerships in empowering women entrepreneurs, inventors
The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) emphasized the importance of partnerships in fostering innovation and empowering women at a panel for the 2025 Women and IP Symposium for IP Offices held by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Registrar of Designs guidance regarding excluded designs
Registrar of Designs, Excluded designs
Gazettal of amendments to subsidiary legislation relating to intellectual property registration and litigation matters
The Government today (May 23) gazetted the Rules of the High Court (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2025, the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2025, the Registered Designs (Amendment) Rules 2025 and the Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2025 to streamline the intellectual property (IP) litigation processes in the High Court and the proceedings before the statutory registries of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD).
Analysing the legal meaning of ‘copying’ through an empirical study of UK substantial similarity copyright cases and psychological explanations of litigant trends
The substantial similarity test has been criticized as difficult to apply. Nevertheless, it plays a central role in deciding the extent to which works similar to existing copyright works are improper copies or new works that should be allowed. This article provides an empirical analysis of UK substantial similarity copyright cases, contributing to this discussion by revealing how this test is applied in practice. What type of substantial similarity copyright cases tend to be brought by litigants, what factors are relevant in the judgments and what patterns of claimant and defendant losses are revealed?
The compliance of the fair use clause in the South African copyright amendment bill with the three-step test and the constitution of South Africa
This contribution distinguishes fair dealing in the Copyright Act from fair use in the Copyright Amendment Bill to assess the differences between them, given the contestation around the proposed fair use clause in South Africa. The contribution then considers whether the fair use clause in the Bill complies with South Africa’s international obligations encapsulated in the three-step test of the Berne Convention and the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Furthermore, this paper analyses whether the proposed fair use clause complies with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
Perfect Day’s imperfect outcome – patent drafting and opposition lessons
When drafting patent applications at each stage of the process – from provisional applications to complete – it can be difficult to predict the future opportunities and challenges faced by a business, which may result in a divergence between the early technology focus and the later commercial realities. Prior art can also influence decision-making on what to focus on as the key inventive concept, and often this only comes to light after the application is filed. The history of Perfect Day’s first patent application in Australia, which lead to the decision of the Australian Federal Court in Perfect Day, Inc. v Commissioner of Patents [2025] FCA 270, illustrates a clear case-in-point.
Government publishes second transformation consultation response
The IPO’s digital transformation has reached another key milestone with the government response to its second transformation consultation being published today. This consultation ran between August and October 2023.
EUIPO releases study on generative artificial intelligence and copyright
On 12 May 2025, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) released a comprehensive study titled "The development of Generative Artificial Intelligence from a Copyright perspective". This highly anticipated study is the result of extensive research and analysis.
The never-ending story of Brexit – Chapter: EUIPO v Nowhere – Act I: The Advocate General’s Opinion
What happens if the earlier right ‘disappears’ in the course of opposition proceedings before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) or its Board of Appeal (‘BoA’), for instance due to the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU (also known as Brexit)? This question is at the heart of Advocate General (‘AG’) Ćapeta’s opinion in EUIPO v Nowhere (C-337/22).
AI and Copyright - the Kidron Amendments
The UK's House of Lords (the upper chamber in the UK's Houses of Parliament) has voted to add what are known as Baroness Kidron's amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. This amendment would, if it becomes law, require the Secretary of State to force AI developers to publish information about the works used to train their models.
Defining the undefinable: The challenges and opportunities for cell therapy IP
IP strategy for cell therapies presents unique challenges compared to traditional pharmaceuticals and biologics. Previous posts have highlighted the limitations of process patents in cell therapy (IPKat) and the need to think strategically about how best to protect the product from fast-follower competition (IPKat). This post focusses on an even more fundamental challenge, that of the inherent complexity of defining a cell and what this means for devising an effective IP strategy.
EUIPO celebrates Europe Day with the people of Alicante
On 9 May, the EUIPO proudly marked Europe Day by joining forces with the people of Alicante to celebrate peace, unity and European values in the heart of the city. The event, held at the ADDA Concert Hall, brought together around 1200 attendees for a vibrant and joyful celebration.
{{item.basicTitle}}
Technology Domain
Publication Date
-
{{item.basicTitle}}
{{item.basicDescription.slice(0,250)}}{{item.basicDescription.length>250?"...":""}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
-
{{item.showText}}
{{enterWhos.enText}} Trademark Registration
Registration process
Requirements
| Required information | Required documents |
|---|---|
|
No document required |
Please note:
- {{item}}
-
Principle of trademark protection:Principle of trademark protection;
-
Classification system of goods and services:Nice Classification; multi-class application is available;
-
Requirements for trademark use:The applicant shall provide evidence showing use of the trademark on the designated goods/services. Evidence of use for goods includes but not limited to: product photos printed with trademarks, product packaging, product labels, exhibition pictures, brochures, sales contracts and other purchase documents and information; but advertisements or media reports cannot be used as evidence of effective use. Evidence for services includes but not limited to: the brochures printed with trademarks, web page introductions, contracts for provision of services and other documents.
It is important to preserve the evidence when use a trademark in United States; otherwise the trademark will be partially or totally invalidated over the designated goods and services for not submitting sufficient mark use evidence during the stage of submitting the statement of use. -
An application for trademark registration shall be filed before the U.S. Intellectual Property Office (USTPO), and there must be a basis for filing application in the United States. There are mainly three types:(1)"Intended Use": This basis applies to cases where the trademark has not been used in the United States at the time of filing the application for registration. Based on "intention to use" to file an application for trademark registration, the application can be submitted directly without providing evidence of trademark use. However, when the official passes the trademark examination, an official notice will be issued requesting the applicant to submit evidence of use and the time of first use in the world and the United States in order to obtain a trademark registration certificate. If the trademark has not been used before it is approved for registration, the applicant may postpone the submission of the statement of use for a period of 6 months at a time, for a total of 5 times. If the use evidence cannot be provided in the end, the trademark will be invalid.
(2)"Actual Use": This basis is applicable to the case where the trademark was already used in the United States when the application for registration was submitted. When filing an application for trademark registration on the basis of "already used", evidence of the use of the trademark in the United States and the earliest date of use shall be provided.
(3)"Registration in Other Countries": This basis is used when an application for registration of the same trademark has been submitted in the origin country and the applicant cannot provide mark use evidence in the United States for a short period of time. Application information (including designated goods/services) in the US application should be consistent with those in the application of origin country, and a copy of registration certificate in the origin country should be provided.
Title
Jurisdiction
Type
Update Date
-
-
{{item.title.slice(0,60)}}{{item.title.length>60?"...":""}}
{{item.date}}
-
{{item.haha}}
- {{ipType[item.ipType]}}
-
Ready to Manage Your IP Portfolio Smarter?
From AI-powered trademark search to marketplace monitoring — the Kangxin IP Platform turns knowledge into results.
Explore the Kangxin IP Platform
Put your IP knowledge into practice with our comprehensive suite of AI-powered tools.
Disclaimer: We will do our best to present you with as complete and accurate information as
possible.
However, due to the limited frequency of content updates in some countries, all content is for reference
only and has no legal effect.
Jane Chen
